I enjoyed this. It took me back to a time when clothes were much more expensive than they are today, and we ended up sewing a lot of our own instead of buying them off the rack. Then they started becoming so cheap that it was less expensive to buy them than to make them.
Yes it seems like a blessing, but there are actually huge problems with it. We are also not paying for the 'true' cost of the garment.
When you look at the waste and the fashion industry, for example, 20% of global water waste is down to the fashion industry. The average American throws away 81 pounds of clothes a year (somebody must be throwing away a lot more than me!) with less than 1% recycled into new clothes.
I think Americans talk a good game about buying American but just look at all the mom and pop local stores that have been driven out of business by the big box stores and Amazon even as we mourn their loss. As someone else said, we want our $7.99 toaster and we want it tomorrow.
Yes this is the huge problem. The Unwinding talks about this, particularly under the chapter about Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart.
I honestly don't know if it will work to any great degree, but he has done this and I hope to God it does because the alternative is the abyss. He is trying to keep the UTB at a manageable rate (ie you will have a strong dollar) but making the dollar artificially weaker for imported manufactured goods and thus supporting the vital manufacturing base (or what remains of it).
The T Dan Smith method (British politician who said that Newcastle could become prosperous if it only concentrated on leisure, and gave up on its heavy industry) has been shown to fail time and time again. Economies need to be based on more than simply services.
Yes, we got addicted to cheap and the “thrill” of buying. It is hard to break any habit and “daddy” is at least trying. I think the MAGA coalition members have shown pride in”America” and is participating, the other group is so brainwashed that it is more likely to overdose than try to recover.
As the “tariffs” issue evolves and I learn so much from others, my own views are evolving. It now appears that Trump’s goal is not solely the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers on our exports but, in fact, a huge reduction in our overall trade deficit with the world.
I am a Midwesterner who grew up in a town devastated by our factories shutting down as the production was sent overseas. Many who comment on this issue don’t seem to care about that but I do and it colors my thoughts.
Trump was wrong to conflate tariffs and the balance of trade deficit the way he did but they are related. We buy cheap Chinese goods (I am certainly guilty) far in excess of what they buy from us and to make up the difference we send IOU’s to China in return. China is using those IOU’s to buy up our farmland, our remaining factories and our skyscrapers. The very essence of our country’s wealth and strength is going to a potential enemy, while our own capacity to produce the weapons we need to defend ourselves decays. Are we blind to what has happened and is happening? It must change and although I didn’t vote for Trump, I do support his attempts to bring back some of our lost manufacturing to our country and to reduce our trade deficits which are resulting in the sale of our national assets to foreign countries. Is there a better way to do that, I don’t know but does anyone have another idea?
What 78% of the American public say they will do is very different from what 78% of the American public WILL do—particularly in times when inflation is rapidly rising.
In any event, THESE tariffs seem to have been slapped together without any real thought at all. If you do the arithmetic, it looks like they took the U.S. trade deficit with every one of its trade partners, divided that sum by the dollar value of each trade partner's exports to the U.S. & slapped the resulting fraction on as a tariff—which is just BIZARRE.
For example: Madagascar, one of the poorest countries in Africa, has just been hit with a 47% tariff. That's because Madagascar is one of the few places on the planet where vanilla beans grow. Madagascar can't afford to buy stuff from the U.S., so, of course, they don't, hence trade deficit. Tariffs are gonna drive up the cost of vanilla astronomically—but that's not gonna make anyone in Madagascar buy more American goods.
Plus, it overlooks the fact that while a trade deficit may exist in manufacturing, the U.S. actually runs a trade SURPLUS of $278 billion in services—and services make up 70% of the U.S. economy.
There are some exceptions to the wacky methodology, of course: The 10% tariff on U.K. exports, for example, is clearly a gift and will go down if King Charles III can figure out a way to knight Trump. It clears the way for Britain to become a gateway for EU goods, and as the designated middleman, the U.K.'s economic prospects are bound to bounce higher.
I agree that some of the tariffs do not make sense. They adopted a blanket approach.
The reason why the UK has 10% is because the US actually has a trade surplus with the UK -- we buy more US manufacturing than Americans purchase UK manufactured goods. It is really that simple. It is not because Trump expects to get a knighthood or similar.
The UK and the EU have an uneasy trading relationship due to Brexit. I doubt the UK will become a middleman.
The other thing which does not make sense to me. Is what does Navarro have against VAT which basically functions as a sales tax?
Instead of seeing the price and a sales tax added afterwards, with VAT the customer just sees the total price. Domestic producers pay the same amount as importers.
At the moment, Russia and North Korea can't ship anything due to sanctions but I agree it was odd. They should have had the minimum 10% like Iran... ( I am not sure what Iran ships to the US at moment).
So far 50 countries are on the list to talk with Trump. Maybe Madagascar is one of them. But you only assume they’ve been slapped together no dount from the media “experts” saying so..
Why not give the process a chance. Unless one is afraid it’s going to work.
Maybe half right but still some good points there. America is at the mercy of countries, primarily China,, which produce products that are really vital, such as steel and pharmaceuticals. Exposing us to blackmail at any moment. Then there is the question of elementary fairness - if tariff and trade policy is not reciprocal, they are a rigged game. Too, although liberals will whine about appalling labor and environmental practices in other nations, they could give a fig as they yammer in their smart phones produced by slave labor in China and mines in the Congo. Hypocrisy reigns - not only there but in the stock market that soared while the heartland of America was hollowed out. The tariff reform is long overdue.
I agree -- textiles was just one example. It is a startling one because people don't really think about it (or indeed the pollution it causes in the producer countries). They simply want to buy the cheap t-shirt.
There are huge problems with over consolidation as well in things pharmaceuticals -- for example I believe most of the dressings are/were made in Puerto Rico until some hurricane happened.
The real problem is has the Triffin tipping point been reached or not. It is obvious the dollar has been far too strong for far too long -- this has brought benefits but it has hollowed the engine which drove American progress.
If this doesn 't work, then America will be ever more at the mercy of China because it is ultimately the lead manufacturing nations who control the world's security . The Hudson Bay Capital piece is interesting because of who wrote it and their position within the Trump administration.
Yes we are in uncharted territory, we are not in the land of that’s the way we’ve always done things anymore, which is why there are shrieks. So let’s just wait and see what happens after a week or a month or more. Already 50 countries are wanting to talk tariffs with Trump.
Maybe his way is the way we should have done things. But it all remains to be seen.
I think we have to adopt a wait and see approach. It depends on if it is going to be a unilateral or multi-lateral approach.
When I did my econ degree in the mid 80s, there was a huge debate on this. The John Deere tractor problem -- the way they sought to solve it was through off-shoring which worked for the higher ups, but it did not work for workers as sometimes there was no successor industry to take the place of the off shored one.
For America's sake, I hope it works. The whole question of how does one re-shore and/or develop successor industries is something economists, particularly macro-economists have grappled with for a long time.
I enjoyed this. It took me back to a time when clothes were much more expensive than they are today, and we ended up sewing a lot of our own instead of buying them off the rack. Then they started becoming so cheap that it was less expensive to buy them than to make them.
Yes it seems like a blessing, but there are actually huge problems with it. We are also not paying for the 'true' cost of the garment.
When you look at the waste and the fashion industry, for example, 20% of global water waste is down to the fashion industry. The average American throws away 81 pounds of clothes a year (somebody must be throwing away a lot more than me!) with less than 1% recycled into new clothes.
https://www.wastemanaged.co.uk/our-news/retail/fashion-waste-facts-and-statistics/
But the making of clothes because it is so time consuming etc, was the first thing to be mechanized, freeing women up to do other things.
I think Americans talk a good game about buying American but just look at all the mom and pop local stores that have been driven out of business by the big box stores and Amazon even as we mourn their loss. As someone else said, we want our $7.99 toaster and we want it tomorrow.
Yes this is the huge problem. The Unwinding talks about this, particularly under the chapter about Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart.
I honestly don't know if it will work to any great degree, but he has done this and I hope to God it does because the alternative is the abyss. He is trying to keep the UTB at a manageable rate (ie you will have a strong dollar) but making the dollar artificially weaker for imported manufactured goods and thus supporting the vital manufacturing base (or what remains of it).
The T Dan Smith method (British politician who said that Newcastle could become prosperous if it only concentrated on leisure, and gave up on its heavy industry) has been shown to fail time and time again. Economies need to be based on more than simply services.
Yes, we got addicted to cheap and the “thrill” of buying. It is hard to break any habit and “daddy” is at least trying. I think the MAGA coalition members have shown pride in”America” and is participating, the other group is so brainwashed that it is more likely to overdose than try to recover.
As the “tariffs” issue evolves and I learn so much from others, my own views are evolving. It now appears that Trump’s goal is not solely the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers on our exports but, in fact, a huge reduction in our overall trade deficit with the world.
I am a Midwesterner who grew up in a town devastated by our factories shutting down as the production was sent overseas. Many who comment on this issue don’t seem to care about that but I do and it colors my thoughts.
Trump was wrong to conflate tariffs and the balance of trade deficit the way he did but they are related. We buy cheap Chinese goods (I am certainly guilty) far in excess of what they buy from us and to make up the difference we send IOU’s to China in return. China is using those IOU’s to buy up our farmland, our remaining factories and our skyscrapers. The very essence of our country’s wealth and strength is going to a potential enemy, while our own capacity to produce the weapons we need to defend ourselves decays. Are we blind to what has happened and is happening? It must change and although I didn’t vote for Trump, I do support his attempts to bring back some of our lost manufacturing to our country and to reduce our trade deficits which are resulting in the sale of our national assets to foreign countries. Is there a better way to do that, I don’t know but does anyone have another idea?
What 78% of the American public say they will do is very different from what 78% of the American public WILL do—particularly in times when inflation is rapidly rising.
In any event, THESE tariffs seem to have been slapped together without any real thought at all. If you do the arithmetic, it looks like they took the U.S. trade deficit with every one of its trade partners, divided that sum by the dollar value of each trade partner's exports to the U.S. & slapped the resulting fraction on as a tariff—which is just BIZARRE.
For example: Madagascar, one of the poorest countries in Africa, has just been hit with a 47% tariff. That's because Madagascar is one of the few places on the planet where vanilla beans grow. Madagascar can't afford to buy stuff from the U.S., so, of course, they don't, hence trade deficit. Tariffs are gonna drive up the cost of vanilla astronomically—but that's not gonna make anyone in Madagascar buy more American goods.
Plus, it overlooks the fact that while a trade deficit may exist in manufacturing, the U.S. actually runs a trade SURPLUS of $278 billion in services—and services make up 70% of the U.S. economy.
There are some exceptions to the wacky methodology, of course: The 10% tariff on U.K. exports, for example, is clearly a gift and will go down if King Charles III can figure out a way to knight Trump. It clears the way for Britain to become a gateway for EU goods, and as the designated middleman, the U.K.'s economic prospects are bound to bounce higher.
I agree that some of the tariffs do not make sense. They adopted a blanket approach.
The reason why the UK has 10% is because the US actually has a trade surplus with the UK -- we buy more US manufacturing than Americans purchase UK manufactured goods. It is really that simple. It is not because Trump expects to get a knighthood or similar.
The UK and the EU have an uneasy trading relationship due to Brexit. I doubt the UK will become a middleman.
The other thing which does not make sense to me. Is what does Navarro have against VAT which basically functions as a sales tax?
Instead of seeing the price and a sales tax added afterwards, with VAT the customer just sees the total price. Domestic producers pay the same amount as importers.
This article explains why Navarro (and Trump) are getting it wrong. And no VAT isn't funding the NHS either. The US could even benefit from VAT. https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/04/02/no-vat-isnt-a-tariff-but-the-us-would-benefit-from-adopting-it/
Interesting article. TY again, Michelle.
Wrong. Any country without tariffs can be used by China to continue to ship here without penalties.
"A country without tariffs?" You mean like Russia & North Korea? 😀
At the moment, Russia and North Korea can't ship anything due to sanctions but I agree it was odd. They should have had the minimum 10% like Iran... ( I am not sure what Iran ships to the US at moment).
I cannot “mind-read” but I can guess that there’s more in play, like participation in current war in Ukraine and trying to negotiate peace.
At the moment if you attempted to import anything into the US from either of those places, tariffs would be the least of your concerns.
So far 50 countries are on the list to talk with Trump. Maybe Madagascar is one of them. But you only assume they’ve been slapped together no dount from the media “experts” saying so..
Why not give the process a chance. Unless one is afraid it’s going to work.
>>no dount from the media “experts” saying so..<<
No, actually I'm an economist. And I don't read mainstream media.
But you just keep right on growing those potatoes & insulting people!
Ah, so you’re an “expert” also. Tell me. Have you also predicted twelve of the last two recessions Ms economist?
Good points, Michelle. TY.
Maybe half right but still some good points there. America is at the mercy of countries, primarily China,, which produce products that are really vital, such as steel and pharmaceuticals. Exposing us to blackmail at any moment. Then there is the question of elementary fairness - if tariff and trade policy is not reciprocal, they are a rigged game. Too, although liberals will whine about appalling labor and environmental practices in other nations, they could give a fig as they yammer in their smart phones produced by slave labor in China and mines in the Congo. Hypocrisy reigns - not only there but in the stock market that soared while the heartland of America was hollowed out. The tariff reform is long overdue.
I agree -- textiles was just one example. It is a startling one because people don't really think about it (or indeed the pollution it causes in the producer countries). They simply want to buy the cheap t-shirt.
There are huge problems with over consolidation as well in things pharmaceuticals -- for example I believe most of the dressings are/were made in Puerto Rico until some hurricane happened.
The real problem is has the Triffin tipping point been reached or not. It is obvious the dollar has been far too strong for far too long -- this has brought benefits but it has hollowed the engine which drove American progress.
If this doesn 't work, then America will be ever more at the mercy of China because it is ultimately the lead manufacturing nations who control the world's security . The Hudson Bay Capital piece is interesting because of who wrote it and their position within the Trump administration.
Yes we are in uncharted territory, we are not in the land of that’s the way we’ve always done things anymore, which is why there are shrieks. So let’s just wait and see what happens after a week or a month or more. Already 50 countries are wanting to talk tariffs with Trump.
Maybe his way is the way we should have done things. But it all remains to be seen.
I think we have to adopt a wait and see approach. It depends on if it is going to be a unilateral or multi-lateral approach.
When I did my econ degree in the mid 80s, there was a huge debate on this. The John Deere tractor problem -- the way they sought to solve it was through off-shoring which worked for the higher ups, but it did not work for workers as sometimes there was no successor industry to take the place of the off shored one.
For America's sake, I hope it works. The whole question of how does one re-shore and/or develop successor industries is something economists, particularly macro-economists have grappled with for a long time.